Obama Will Launch A HUGE PROPAGANDA BLITZ - & May Attack Syria Even If He Loses the Vote in Congress

[Segami]

Grassroots pressure has forced President Obama to seek approval from Congress for an attack on Syria. But Obama is hell-bent on ordering a missile assault on that country, and he has two very important aces in the hole. The administration is about to launch a ferocious propaganda blitz that will engulf a wide range of U.S. media. And as a fallback, the president is reserving the option of attacking Syria no matter what Congress does. Until Obama's surprise announcement Saturday that he will formally ask Congress for authorization of military action against Syria, the impassioned pitches from top U.S. officials in late August seemed to be closing arguments before cruise missiles would hit Syrian targets. But the pre-bombing hyper spin has just gotten started. The official appeals for making war on yet another country will be ferocious. Virtually all the stops will be pulled out; all kinds of media will be targeted; every kind of convoluted argument will be employed.



Hell hath no fury like war-makers scorned. Simmering rage will be palpable from political elites who do not want to see Congress set an unprecedented precedent: thwarting the will of a president who wants Pentagon firepower unleashed on another country. President Obama and top Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will twist every arm they can to get a "yes" vote for attacking Syria. Meanwhile, most mainline media pundits, numbingly addicted to war, will often chastise and denigrate foes of authorization. But we have a real chance to prevent a U.S. attack. One cogent argument after another, from intelligence veterans and policy analysts and weapons experts, has debunked the messaging for war on Syria. And some members of Congress -- not nearly enough, but some -- have begun to speak up with cogent opposition.



One of NPR's inside-the-box hosts of "All Things Considered" on August 30 asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the Obama administration's claim that missile strikes on Syria would be "a limited action" and not "war." Congresswoman Lofgren replied: "I think that anyone who argues that shooting missiles and dropping bombs on another country is not an act of war has got some further education warranted. If somebody shot cruise missiles at Washington for only one day, we would still consider it an act of war, wouldn't we?" Not many members of Congress have Lofgren's clarity, and many of their votes on authorization are up for grabs. Each of us can help affect the outcome by demanding that our senators and representative oppose the war resolution. We should make our voices heard in all sorts of public venues. The president's move for a congressional vote should cause a major escalation of anti-war activism. A straw in the wind: during just a few hours after Obama's announcement on Saturday afternoon, nearly 10,000 people took the initiative via RootsAction.org to email members of Congress with a "No Attack on Syria" message.



National opinion polling and momentum inside Congress indicate that we can defeat Obama's war resolution. It'll be a tremendous fight, but we can prevail. But even if Obama loses the vote in Congress, there's a very real danger that he will proceed with ordering an attack on Syria. Burying the lead almost a dozen paragraphs into a September 1 news story, the New York Times mentioned in passing: "White House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it." A careful reading of Obama's Rose Garden announcement on Saturday verifies that he never quite said he will abide by the decision of Congress if it refuses to approve an attack on Syria. Instead, the president filled his statement with hedging phrases, detouring around any such commitment with words like these...


cont'



http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Will-Launch-a-Huge-P-by-Norman-Solomon-Congress_Propaganda_Syria_Syrian-Situation-130901-573.html

[Downwinder]

1. If he does that you may find me on the overpass

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

with an impeachment sign. I don't approve vigilante justice.

[Segami]

2. At the end of the day...

we all need to stand up and be count for our positions.

[Thinkingabout]

29. How interesting you do not approve of vigilantly justice and you are going to go an overpass with

Impeachment sign? Are you sure you don't believe in vigilantly justice? Sounds as you do practice vigilantly justice, better check your approvals again.

[Downwinder]

37. Have to recheck my 6 a.m. proofreading, that is certain.

[Thinkingabout]

40. If you don't approve of vigilante justice then you would not be planning to be on the overpass with

a sign unless your sign approves of taking action.

[Carolina]

3. speaks volumes about BHO

He can fight and enlist support for what he really wants... war, but not for a public option.

I have really had it with this POTUS

[pnwmom]

8. Speaks volumes about the writer, who knows nothing about

Obama's plans or deliberations at this point. The writer's just trying to sell more of his books.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. And of course the President also sells his own books, it has been the primary source of his wealth

this selling of books. Some Republicans say his first run for office was a book tour that caught on so the whole 'I slam people for making a living in the same way as the guy I am praising' routine is tired stuff.

[pkdu]

28. As they say.....

Don't let the door...

[Scuba]

4. ...

[Segami]

5. +1000

[leftstreet]

39. +1

[sendero]

6. He's the president..

.. not King

He's a puppet, more than likely. And I'm pretty sick and tired of the puppeteer.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Incoming....

[pnwmom]

9. Hell bent? Hogwash. If he were hell bent he would have already attacked Syria.

He's taking his time and considering the options.

The writer doesn't have an inside story. He's just someone grabbing the opportunity to peddle his book.

[Andy823]

20. It's kind of insane around here

I have seen so much BS from the same old crowd of "anything Obama does is evil", and from some pretty off the wall sources. I guess their ODS is in full control of their mind!

[stonecutter357]

10. I am sure ron or mitt would have done better.

Libertarian bullshit

[Segami]

12. And you sound more like Cheney.

[stonecutter357]

31. May Attack ?

[dennis4868]

11. OMG

and then he may blow up the world, be the last one standing and have nobody to twerk with....this article isn't even worth the toilet paper I used this morning. What trash.

[MzShellG]

25. You've got that right..Utter nonsense. nt

[Cryptoad]

13. Whose Umbrella

does he live under?

[mountain grammy]

15. Oh come on now, really? This isn't GW. Do you really think the President is hell bent for war?

I don't agree with military action, but Obama is no war monger. This is a terrible situation and we all want it to end peacefully without the slaughter of innocents. Let's try to remember what's happening in Syria.

I swear, sometimes I go here and think I've mistakenly gone to fox nation. Democrats threatening to go to the overpasses with "impeach Obama" signs? What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. He boxed himself into a corner.

There will be some military action of some sort.

[Andy823]

22. I agree

When people who claim to be democrats come up with this BS, it makes you wonder just exactly what their agenda is! Question the president, or disagreeing is one thing, but lately it seems a certain group here have gone way off the deep end, and there is no coming back. No matter what they just have to attack him, and it's really pathetic!

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. But Obama's a chessmaster, like 13 dimensions or more.

He's got the republicans where he wants them, see? So masterful.

[Segami]

18. Yup. He has them cornered.

[ellenrr]

19. Clearly. If he didn't know he would get approval, he wouldn't have ask them.

anyway, as Glenn Greenwald says, Obama does not perceive that he needs Congressional approval. He only wants it for cover. He certainly didn't need it for regime change in Libya.

"the Congressional vote which Obama said he would seek appears, in his mind, to have no binding force at all. There is no reason to believe that a Congressional rejection of the war's authorization would constrain Obama in any way, other than perhaps politically. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence for the proposition that the White House sees the vote as purely advisory, i.e., meaningless.

Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway (just as Clinton did when the House rejected the authorization he wanted to bomb Kosovo, though, at least there, Congress later voted to allocate funds for the bombing campaign). Why would the White House view the President's power to wage war in Libya as unconstrainable by Congress, yet view his power to wage war in Syria as dependent upon Congressional authorization?"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization

[sulphurdunn]

21. If a "limited strike"

is not an act of war, then 911 was not an act of war and there is therefore no war on terror.

[on point]

23. Then that is grounds for impeachment and I would support that completely

[malletgirl02]

24. New York Times

Right after I saw your post I went to the New York Times website and saw this headline, "Obama Starts Lobbying Blitz for Support of Strike on Syria"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0

You are way ahead on the game on this.

[fredamae]

26. They can all blame POTUS

all they want-but if we're reading about, watching "it" on the TV Machine-it is the Corporate Owned "News" machine that is actually Doing the work of Propagandizing "us"...they don't say anything without prior approval, pretty much--right?

It seems to me that the outcome of this vote in congress/WH is going to reveal a lot more than just the vote on Syria-it's going to tell us who "runs this joint" called The People's Govt"....

[Safetykitten]

27. Oh yes indeedy! You are correct.

[tridim]

30. FUD doesn't get much thicker than that.

BTW, if you bold 50% of a story, you might as well bold the whole thing.

[Bobbie Jo]

32. Right?

"Propaganda" comes in many shapes and sizes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Maybe he should advertise his war by offering coupons for the next one.

[underthematrix]

34. I never thought there was anyway a

white sheet house was gonna vote for a war in which a president of color was looking out for the interests of people of color in a foreign land.

[pampango]

35. It will be interesting to see how the votes of the Progressive Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus

compare at the end of the day. I expect they will both vote against it but for different reasons. Which will have a larger mjaority voting for authorization?

For the Tea Party caucus it will be part anti-Obama, part libertarian-isolationism (who cares about Syrians anyway).

For the Progressive Caucus the vote will be anti-war.

[gulliver]

36. Wrong. Don't you see?

He's going to distract us with Syria and then put chained CPI into Social Security COLAs while we aren't looking. He's going to collude with corporations, drone attack helpless cats and dogs, put 24-hour government cameras in all our potties. Don't you see it?

[BootinUp]

38. Anyone ever heard the phrase "All options are on the table"?

Did the writer and others who think like him/her really expect the WH to limit their options in a hypothetical situation?